Understanding Accountability for Torture: The Domestic Enforcement of International Human Rights Treaties Prepared by Professor Deborah M. Weissman Christina Anderson Tyler Buckner Jessica Green Siya Hegde Beth Kapopoulos Rhian Mayhew Susanna Wagar UNC School of Law Human Rights Policy Lab 2016-2017 http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/academics/humanrights/understanding-accountability-for-torture.pdf TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER ONE .........................................................................................................................................5 AN OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES .................................................................................................................................5 I. What is International Law? ....................................................................................................................................... 5 A. CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW ................................................................................... 6 B. WHAT IS INTERNATIONAL TREATY LAW? ........................................................................... 8 C. WHAT IS AN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATY? .................................................... 9 II. What Do International Human Rights Treaties Say? ................................................................................... 11 A. THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES ..................................................... 12 B. THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS ............................... 14 C. THE 1984 CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT ............................................................................................... 18 D. GOVERNING BODIES AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ICCPR AND CAT ................................ 21 1. UN Human Rights Committee ..........................................................................................................................................22 2. The Committee Against Torture .....................................................................................................................................23 3. The Human Rights Council and the Universal Periodic Review .......................................................................24 E. THE UNITED STATES’ RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ICCPR AND CAT ................................... 25 1. ICCPR and the Human Rights Committee’s Concluding Observations ........................................................... 26 2. The CAT and the Committee Against Torture’s Concluding Observations .................................................. 29 3. Advocacy Groups ...................................................................................................................................................................30 III. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................... 31 CHAPTER TWO .................................................................................................................................... 33 THE UNITED STATES, THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, AND ITS TREATY RESERVATIONS, UNDERSTANDINGS, AND DECLARATIONS: CONTEXTUAL IMPLICATIONS TO ENFORCING HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES ..................................................................................... 33 I. What Are Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations? .................................................................. 33 II. RUDs, The Supremacy Clause and the Debate About Self-Executing vs. Non-Self-executing treaties. ................................................................................................................................................................................ 36 A. SELF-EXECUTING VS. NON-SELF-EXECUTING TREATIES ................................................... 36 B. SELF-EXECUTING VS. NON-SELF-EXECUTING TREATIES AND THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE ... 39 1. A historical Analysis of the Supremacy Clause Shows that Treaties Entered into by the United States are Self-Executing Immediately after Ratification. ........................................................................................39 2. A Textual Analysis Finds that Treaties are Required to Become Legally Binding and Applied Domestically Immediately After Ratification. ................................................................................................................41 3. A Contrary View: Treaties Need Not Be Applied Domestically Without Further Congressional Action. ..............................................................................................................................................................................................44 4. A Muddied View: Supreme Court jurisprudence on the Supremacy Clause. ............................................ 44 5. The better view: treaties are self-executing under the Supremacy Clause ............................................... 46 III. RUDs and The Difference Between Human Rights Treaties and Other Treaties ........................... 47 IV. A Focus on The United States and Its Use of RUDs in Human Rights Treaties ................................ 50 V. The Final (Practical) Word: The text of U.S. RUDs do not provide a shield ...................................... 54 A. THE ICCPR ...................................................................................................................... 54 B. CAT ................................................................................................................................. 55 ii CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................................................ 57 TORTURED REASONING: INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, FEDERALISM AND THE CIA’S EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AND TORTURE PROGRAM .............................. 57 I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 57 II. The Supreme Law of the Jungle ............................................................................................................................ 58 A. HISTORY AND COMMON SENSE IN THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE ........................................... 58 B. THE NATIONALIST VIEW OF THE TREATY POWER ............................................................. 62 C. A SUBJECT MATTER LIMITATION WITH A BACKBONE ...................................................... 67 III. Withholding Judgment ........................................................................................................................................... 69 A. PREEMPTORY NORMS AND ORDINARY CUSTOM ............................................................... 70 B. TORTURE AS A PREEMPTORY NORM ................................................................................. 71 C. THE NEXUS PROBLEM ...................................................................................................... 74 D. THE “LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES” AND CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW ............... 78 IV. The CAT’s Out of the Bag ....................................................................................................................................... 82 CHAPTER FOUR ................................................................................................................................... 84 DOES DOMESTICATING INTERNATIONAL LAW TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE MEAN ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION? ....................................................... 84 I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 84 II. Extraordinary Rendition Overview: Its Origin, Expansion, and Perpetuation of Torture ........... 85 A. GENERAL HISTORY OF EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION ....................................................... 85 B. EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION POST 9/11 .......................................................................... 86 C. NORTH CAROLINA’S INVOLVEMENT IN EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION .............................. 87 III. Laws that Prohibit Torture and Extraordinary Rendition ..................................................................... 91 A. INTERNATIONAL LAWS THAT PROHIBIT TORTURE ........................................................... 91 1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights ......................................................................................................................91 2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights .............................................................................................92 3. Convention Against Torture .............................................................................................................................................93 B. FEDERAL STATUTES THAT PROHIBIT TORTURE ................................................................ 94 1. What do Federal Statutes Mean for Extraordinary Rendition and Accountability? ................................ 98 C. STATES MUST COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONAL AND FEDERAL LAW: WHY THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE